About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
panetta went to iraq and afghanistan. he did not go to pakistan. i take that as a strong message. it is easy when you're in that region to attack on an extra couple of days for an important ally. i think that cross the minds of everyone who planned the trip. it was clearly a conscious decision not to go to pakistan. i think that is in part because when osama bin laden was killed on may 2 there was a list of things that we would ask the pakistan's to do, the pakistani to do, and i have not acted on any of them. this administration also put a hold on a $10 million in assistance. a great way to resolve that is sending the defense secretary to talk to folks about what is going on, but he did not. you are seeing already how differently the pentagon will treat allies in the region. "the in this morning's financial times" they had this headline -- guest: the withdrawal deadline is aggressive. they're talking about getting half of the troops out during the prime fighting season. they do not fight as much during the wintertime. we are starting to withdraw troops during a tumultuous situat
it comes to discussing the merits of continuing our efforts in afghanistan, the republicans clamor to defend it despite our fiscal mess. i want to remind my republican friends the situation we are in now is not new. throughout history from rome to the ottoman empire to the soviet union the over extension of military and protracted struggles in foreign countries has crippled empires. some historians have credited ronald reagan for the soviet union's collapse but what really bankrupted the soviet union was its wars, just like us, they paid a crushing price both financially and morally in afghanistan. overextending geopolitically comes at a cost over time in any nation that thinks otherwise is setting itself up to repeat the mistakes of the past. as of today, the united states has spent more than 2 1/2 times the percentage of g.d.p. on afghanistan that the -- than the soviet union spent on its g.d.p. during its nine-year war in afghanistan. public polls are clear, americans know the cost of the war in afghanistan is unsustainable and want us to withdraw as soon as possible. when it co
airborne division which is located along the afghanistan border with pakistan. then a discussion about the 2012 presidential campaign with a focus on the grounds an early primary states as well as the republican presidential field. >> today, the dalai lama and vincent harding talk about non violence. they spoke to more than 10,000 people at the university of arkansas discussing osama bin laden's death, the nuremberg trials, the execution of saddam hussein, and the death penalty. >> in the 20th-century, the number of people were killed and three violence, over 200 million. that problem must be solved. there is also exploitation and we should lay down the seat of hatred course watched this discussion this evening at 6:30 on c-span. what's it look back at president nixon's foreign-policy. members of his administration and his son-in-law discussed topics including communism in china, invading north vietnam and the war in the middle east. >> the discussion in the newspapers were nixon's secret plan for peace. rockefeller did not think that nixon had a plan. he comes in after a hard day camp
a reason why we are in iraq and libya and afghanistan. but having said that, let's face it, it would be ridiculous to assume that i'm making an appeal for democrats when what i'm talking about is those people who are vulnerable. because of our financial center cause people to lose their homes, it wasn't just democrats, there were democrats, republicans, independents, and those that have no faith in government that woke up in the morning, they lost their jobs, they lost their home, they lost their pension funds, they lost their savings, they had to pull their kids out of school, they lost their self-esteem, some lost their homes. i don't remember anywelfare reform we are talking about people that are registered democrats. these are americans that are expected -- that expected more from their government than just saying that we will be able to address your deeds in the by and by. and the very people that are aged, god knows we are not talking about a party label. we are talking about our sick or we are talking about medicaid, we are talking about medicare, when we talk about social sec
billion on katrina. in afghanistan we spend $325 billion -- million a day and in iraq we've spent about $100 million a day. that's almost $1 billion a day. we're talking about $950 -- almost $1 billion in light rail. we can both be right and smart and compassionate if we do the right thing. in our budgeting process we should have an unexpected fund for unforeseen circumstances, we should have learned from katrina. we're looking at probably about $4 billion in term of army corps of engineers. i think our leaderships need to get together and just say that we can do this without fighting among each other, without making each other wrong. because that's wrong. in the eyes of the public, they want us to do the job that needs to get done and have our leadership do that. and so my plea is that we can be fiscally responsible and we can be compassionate and we do that with good planning and good budgeting process, including having contingency funds that should have been there. and so we have an opportunity right now to show the public that we can do all these things and still come out winners fo
of iraq and afghanistan, it would take a serious look out of social security and medicare and in many cases contributing to this deficit. and it would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a little bit more to pay their fair share. something like that is what should be on the floor here this afternoon because it can pass, the president can sign it and it can solve the fiscal problems of this country or take us in the right direction. but we don't have something like that. instead we have a plan that says the following and puts it in the constitution, the guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies can make profits is completely left alone. he doesn't have to do anything. but for the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her children and her parents and more for just about anything she wants in her life. there's something wrong with that picture. sacrifice that is broadly shared is needed in
that they're bringing back, they are companies specifically going after returning iraq and afghanistan veterans to be able to hire them. it was interesting, we were talking about drilling and you go into a drilling platform and they say their favorite people to be able to hire are tank drivers returning from the war zone because they're used to driving equipment, looking on a screen and dealing with multiple things all at once. these are folks employing our veterans and they're engaged in providing great jobs. i was on a fracking site, being able to watch it. it's high tech job, people on computers, as well as people in pumping, trucks, people providing food, people providing the equipment, it's people with big wrenches and people with small computers. and you see this multitude of different jobs provided by oil and natural gas and by fossil fuels we're producing right here in america. we are at a moment that we can either say, we want all green jobs, we want to destroy the jobs producing fossil fuels, or we can say, let's do both. let's encourage the growth of green jobs but let's not
of every six department of defense dollars is going to afghanistan. we got the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened
to die. these needs last long after the last american combat ants depart iraq and afghanistan. this motion to recommit would simply protect our veterans from any potential unintended consequence resulting from this ill-conceived bill, the so-called cut, cap and balance act. the needs of america's veterans should be one of our highest priorities and this motion will ensure that our veterans are taken care of and that they receive the benefits they have earned. let's be clear, the passage of this motion to recommit will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. this amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. so though we may disagree on the bill, today we have the opportunity with this motion to recommit and my amendment to speak with one voice in support of our veterans. it is up to all of us, i urge you to vote yes on this motion to recommit. but let's make sure that if this bill as its -- passes, the cut, cap and balance and any balanced budget will not result in a reduction of veterans benefits. vote yes on
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)